Home EBU TDs

Destructive "toy" - anything to worry about?

A player at one of the clubs at which I occasionally play has a favourite "toy".

A 1 !c opening in third seat only shows either:
(a) a hand that would have opened 1 !c in any other seat (with most partners this will be Acol, but with one or two it is a short club, 5-card major system); or
(b) a hand with 8+ HCP and at least 3-3 (but no more than 5-4) in the majors (the hand may have a void club).

This apparently satisfies Blue Book 7B1(i) for use at Level 4 because all hands that qualify for the bid must have either a 4-card minor or distribution that qualifies for a legal 1NT opening.

With one particular partner that is pretty much the extent of the agreement. The partner originally agreed to play this somewhat reluctantly, and they have specifically not discussed follow-ups except to confirm that the weak jump shifts that they normally play anyway are still on. It is not a regular partnership. Of course if the bid comes up, then the follow-up actions taken by both partners will constitute partnership experience which may lead to implicit agreements which must be disclosed.

Does anyone see a problem with using a destructive method like this with a deliberate policy of not discussing follow-ups?

I have a hand from last night which illustrates the method in action if anyone is interested.

Comments

  • Hmm. The undiscussed follow ups could be a problem if there are sequences which recur which appear to cater for the fact that partner has the second option. It's largely a disclosure issue.

    Plenty of people open light in 3rd seat and this isn't so far off it. I'm not sure it falls under 7B1 (i) as you've described it though, the non 4 club hands won't always have a distribution for 1NT if they can have a club void?

  • @JamesC said:
    Hmm. The undiscussed follow ups could be a problem if there are sequences which recur which appear to cater for the fact that partner has the second option. It's largely a disclosure issue.

    Plenty of people open light in 3rd seat and this isn't so far off it. I'm not sure it falls under 7B1 (i) as you've described it though, the non 4 club hands won't always have a distribution for 1NT if they can have a club void?

    If they have a club void they will have at least four diamonds.

    I'm not a great fan of constructing oddball specifications deliberately to fit the rules whilst effectively making them as random as possible, but I believe this one is legal.

  • @Abbeybear said:

    @JamesC said:
    Hmm. The undiscussed follow ups could be a problem if there are sequences which recur which appear to cater for the fact that partner has the second option. It's largely a disclosure issue.

    Plenty of people open light in 3rd seat and this isn't so far off it. I'm not sure it falls under 7B1 (i) as you've described it though, the non 4 club hands won't always have a distribution for 1NT if they can have a club void?

    If they have a club void they will have at least four diamonds.

    I'm not a great fan of constructing oddball specifications deliberately to fit the rules whilst effectively making them as random as possible, but I believe this one is legal.

    I find the biggest problem with these sorts of agreements is disclosure, and I'm certainly worried that this player seems to be deliberately trying to minimise the amount of information that can be disclosed.

  • It is a problem with relatively casual parners... they may agree 'transfers' with no other discussion... then what is 2S after 1NT? Showing exactly 11, transfer to clubs with a pass or correct, or a definite transfer to clubs?
    Often agreements are made casual like, with little/no discussion of subsequent bids.

    I once agreed weak 2s with a lady and i though 3 weak 2s, she thought Benji and she went on to open 2D. Oops, we got into a mess lol.

    Is specifically not disussing systems a problem? With more casual partners we will often talk things through for 2 minutes with a "we will just muddle through if it crops up" before starting to play.

    With 1 very occasional partner we have agreed that 1x - 1NT is forcing (unless already passed) however, we have not discussed any subsequent bids at all :) not for any possible advatage, but because we only play about twice per year or so, so not worth the time.
  • @gordonrainsford said:
    I find the biggest problem with these sorts of agreements is disclosure, and I'm certainly worried that this player seems to be deliberately trying to minimise the amount of information that can be disclosed.

    I think that both players will aim for full disclosure as I'm sure that the intent is to benefit from the introduction of a random element but not from knowing something that the opponents don't. Whether they will succeed is another matter, of course.

    The problem, as I see it, is that the occasional partner will try hard to work out such bridge logic as there may be in any situation which arises, and because he is beginning to be more familiar with how the mind of the player whose toy it is works, he may be reasonably successful. Even if the implicit agreement that arises from the good guess as to what is going on is fully disclosed for the future, the poor old opponents are always one step behind, as the partner shouldn't be telling them "how he is going to take" something that really is undiscussed.

    In addition, the player whose toy it is, who plays it with several partners, is much less likely to remember with whom any particular situation has arisen, and is going to have trouble avoiding giving misinformation as a result.

    North
    !s A983
    !h J8742
    !d QJ4
    !c K

    South
    !s J7
    !h Q53
    !d AK83
    !c 8765

    North, the player, whose toy it is, opened 1 !c after two passes. When E passed, S didn't know if he was "supposed" to bid 1 !d or 1NT (he does now!) and tried the former, which N passed (so S also now knows the sort of hand on which N might pass). E protected with 1 !h , and W thought that a 2!c advance was natural, whereas E thought it was a cue-bid, and E/W ended in a very silly spot which earned them no matchpoints. Mission accomplished for N/S, but a slightly uncomfortable feeling for S.

    S assures me that this is the fourth occasion on which the toy has come up. On the first, his partner opened 1 !c and he forgot that it might be the toy, so he announced "may be two" instead of alerting. Misinformation but, as it happened, no damage to the opponents. On the second he opened 1 !c, partner responded with what he knew was a weak jump shift, duly alerted and explained - no problem there. On the third the opposition overcalled immediately and his side took no further part in the auction, so again nothing to add to the implicit agreement file.

  • @Abbeybear said:

    @gordonrainsford said:
    I find the biggest problem with these sorts of agreements is disclosure, and I'm certainly worried that this player seems to be deliberately trying to minimise the amount of information that can be disclosed.

    I think that both players will aim for full disclosure as I'm sure that the intent is to benefit from the introduction of a random element but not from knowing something that the opponents don't. Whether they will succeed is another matter, of course.

    The problem, as I see it, is that the occasional partner will try hard to work out such bridge logic as there may be in any situation which arises, and because he is beginning to be more familiar with how the mind of the player whose toy it is works, he may be reasonably successful. Even if the implicit agreement that arises from the good guess as to what is going on is fully disclosed for the future, the poor old opponents are always one step behind, as the partner shouldn't be telling them "how he is going to take" something that really is undiscussed.

    In addition, the player whose toy it is, who plays it with several partners, is much less likely to remember with whom any particular situation has arisen, and is going to have trouble avoiding giving misinformation as a result.

    North
    !s A983
    !h J8742
    !d QJ4
    !c K

    South
    !s J7
    !h Q53
    !d AK83
    !c 8765

    North, the player, whose toy it is, opened 1 !c after two passes. When E passed, S didn't know if he was "supposed" to bid 1 !d or 1NT (he does now!) and tried the former, which N passed (so S also now knows the sort of hand on which N might pass). E protected with 1 !h , and W thought that a 2!c advance was natural, whereas E thought it was a cue-bid, and E/W ended in a very silly spot which earned them no matchpoints. Mission accomplished for N/S, but a slightly uncomfortable feeling for S.

    S assures me that this is the fourth occasion on which the toy has come up. On the first, his partner opened 1 !c and he forgot that it might be the toy, so he announced "may be two" instead of alerting. Misinformation but, as it happened, no damage to the opponents. On the second he opened 1 !c, partner responded with what he knew was a weak jump shift, duly alerted and explained - no problem there. On the third the opposition overcalled immediately and his side took no further part in the auction, so again nothing to add to the implicit agreement file.

    So the toy got one top and 3 presumable averages = 62.5%. In the ACBL one would presumably pre-alert this (or even provide a suggested defence on the convention card) however in a bridge club in England there is nothing the opponents can do. Yes it is legal, however is it right? (Obviously the club committee can rule the agreement illegal unless the club has an agreement to abide by the EBU blue book in its constitution.)

Sign In or Register to comment.